Show simple item record

Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Angle for Predicting the Outcome of Horizontal Bone Augmentation

dc.contributor.authorGaraicoa, Carlosen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuarez, Fernandoen_US
dc.contributor.authorFu, Jia‐huien_US
dc.contributor.authorChan, Hsun‐liangen_US
dc.contributor.authorMonje, Albertoen_US
dc.contributor.authorGalindo‐moreno, Pabloen_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom‐layen_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-05T16:46:57Z
dc.date.available2016-09-06T15:43:59Zen
dc.date.issued2015-08en_US
dc.identifier.citationGaraicoa, Carlos; Suarez, Fernando; Fu, Jia‐hui ; Chan, Hsun‐liang ; Monje, Alberto; Galindo‐moreno, Pablo ; Wang, Hom‐lay (2015). "Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography Angle for Predicting the Outcome of Horizontal Bone Augmentation." Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (4): 717-723.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899en_US
dc.identifier.issn1708-8208en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/112208
dc.description.abstractBackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess the influence of ridge morphology on the amount of horizontal bone augmentation achieved with the sandwich bone augmentation (SBA) technique in the reconstruction of buccal dehiscence defects on dental implants.MethodsCone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was used to assess bone width changes in 26 patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial conducted in 2008 to 2011. The amount of horizontal bone gain was evaluated at four different levels (3, 6, 9, and 12 mm apical to the alveolar crest) and three different time points (T1: baseline, T2: at time of graft placement, and T3: 6 months later). Different morphological characteristics of the alveolar ridge were also evaluated to determine their influence on horizontal bone augmentation. A total of 78 CBCT scans were assessed.ResultsComparison of the changes in ridge morphology at all measurement locations showed an overall ridge width gain of 2.30 ± 2.20 mm after 6 months. The use of membranes and the angulation of the concavity played a role in influencing the outcomes of the SBA technique. Critical crest angulation (CA) is 150° for bone gain at 9 mm apical to the crest. When CA is smaller than 150°, the horizontal bone gain was 4.3 ± 2.2 mm; if CA is greater than 150°, the gain was significantly lower at 1.3 ± 1.7 mm (p = .001).ConclusionsSBA is a reliable and predictable technique to gain horizontal ridge width with simultaneous implant placement. Crest ridge angulation can be used as a tool to predict bone gain at 9 mm apical to the bone crest.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otheralveolar ridge reconstructionen_US
dc.subject.otherimplanten_US
dc.subject.otherguided bone regenerationen_US
dc.subject.othercone beam CTen_US
dc.subject.otherbone augmentationen_US
dc.subject.otherbone allograften_US
dc.titleUsing Cone Beam Computed Tomography Angle for Predicting the Outcome of Horizontal Bone Augmentationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelDentistryen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112208/1/cid12174.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.12174en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Researchen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuser D, Dula K, Belser U, Hirt HP, Berthold H. Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. 1. Surgical procedure in the maxilla. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1993; 13: 29 – 45.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchropp L, Wenzel A, Kostopoulos L, Karring T. Bone healing and soft tissue contour changes following single‐tooth extraction: a clinical and radiographic 12‐month prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003; 23: 313 – 323.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBecker W, Becker BE, Berg L, Samsam C. Clinical and volumetric analysis of three‐wall intrabony defects following open flap debridement. J Periodontol 1986; 57: 277 – 285.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTonetti MS, Pini‐Prato G, Cortellini P. Periodontal regeneration of human intrabony defects. IV. Determinants of healing response. J Periodontol 1993; 64: 934 – 940.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFu JH, Wang HL. Horizontal bone augmentation: the decision tree. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2011; 31: 429 – 436.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark SH, Brooks SL, Oh TJ, Wang HL. Effect of ridge morphology on guided bone regeneration outcome: conventional tomographic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1231 – 1236.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang HL, Boyapati L. “PASS” principles for predictable bone regeneration. Implant Dent 2006; 15: 8 – 17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMelcher AH. On the repair potential of periodontal tissues. J Periodontol 1976; 47: 256 – 260.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBuser D, Dula K, Belser UC, Hirt HP, Berthold H. Localized ridge augmentation using guided bone regeneration. II. Surgical procedure in the mandible. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1995; 15: 10 – 29.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAraujo MG, Lindhe J. Dimensional ridge alterations following tooth extraction. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 2005; 32: 212 – 218.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePark SH, Lee KW, Oh TJ, et al. Effect of absorbable membranes on sandwich bone augmentation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 32 – 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFu JH, Oh TJ, Benavides E, Rudek I, Wang HL. A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of the sandwich bone augmentation technique in increasing buccal bone thickness during implant placement surgery: I. Clinical and radiographic parameters. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 [Epub ahead of print].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOh TJ, Meraw SJ, Lee EJ, Giannobile WV, Wang HL. Comparative analysis of collagen membranes for the treatment of implant dehiscence defects. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 80 – 90.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLee A, Brown D, Wang HL. Sandwich bone augmentation for predictable horizontal bone augmentation. Implant Dent 2009; 18: 282 – 290.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWang HL, Misch C, Neiva RF. “Sandwich” bone augmentation technique: rationale and report of pilot cases. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24: 232 – 245.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAmorfini L, Migliorati M, Signori A, Silvestrini‐Biavati A, Benedicenti S. Block allograft technique versus standard guided bone regeneration: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013 [Epub ahead of print].en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFiorellini JP, Nevins ML. Localized ridge augmentation/preservation. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003; 8: 321 – 327.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceDahlin C, Linde A, Gottlow J, Nyman S. Healing of bone defects by guided tissue regeneration. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 81: 672 – 676.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.